As 7...Qe8 in the IZ is hardly a novelty, I assume that you mean the Leningrad? Then you might find it interesting, that Pelikan played it two times back in 1959.
A quick look in my database learns me, that 7...Qe8 on 2600+ level scores much worse than on 2400- level. Sounds almost like the IZ.
There are quite a few respectable players, btw, who think that reaching equality in the Leningrad is not so easy, if White knows what he is doing .....

I've had a few games with a "Leningrad Stonewall" type setup and it actually offers interesting dynamic possibilities. The activation of the Bc8 is no more a problem in such a setup than it is in the Classical or regular Stonewall setups.

Wow!  With so little material out there, this could be a rather good line to prepare...

I have been meaning to ask the same question for awhile.  With pawns on c6,d5,e6,f5, & g6, how does Black fair?  Is this a kind of Stonewall-Leningrad hybrid?  Where might I find information on this kind of system/line?

Stefan Kindermann's book is absolutely great, 1A! Both on the main lines and also on the most important sidelines like 4.c3 + 5.Qb3, 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5, the Staunton Gambit. As far as I remember the only sideline he dont covers is 1.d4/2.c4/3.Bg5 (he has only 3.Nc3). Valerie Beim (who plays chess in beautiful Austria I think he even got the Austrian citizenship just a few years ago) may be very fine if you are rated above 2200.

Dutch-Leningrad:Which books do you prefer:
Kindermann or Beim or maybe something else?

In answer to all those, who think that preventing e6-e5 is an easy job, I have collected a few examples.

Carlsen,F - Pedersen,E [A99]
Roskilde, 1958
1.Pf3 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Lg2 Pf6 4.0-0 Le7 5.d4 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 a5 9.e3 Pa6 10.Lb2 c6 11.a3 Ld8 12.Pe1 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Dc2 Lc7 15.Pd3 e4 16.Pf4 Pg4 17.Pce2 Pe5 18.h4 De7 19.Kh2 Ld7 20.Pd4 Pc5 21.Tfd1 Pcd3 22.Pxd3 Pxd3 23.Kg1 Le8 24.Lc3 Lh5 25.Pe2 h6 26.Td2 Tad8 27.Ld4 Td7 28.c5 Tfd8 29.b4 axb4 30.axb4 Pxb4 31.Db3+ Pd5 32.Tda2 Lf7 33.Db2 Lh5 34.Kf1 Df7 35.Ta8 Lb8 36.Ke1 Pc7 37.T8a4 Pb5 38.Lf1 Kh7 39.Pf4 Lxf4 40.gxf4 Pxd4 41.Txd4 Txd4 42.exd4 Df6 43.Ta4 Dxh4 44.Dd2 e3 0-1

Klemm,W - Kuehn
corr DDR-Cup, 1978
1.c4 f5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.g3 d6 4.d4 e6 5.Pc3 Le7 6.Lg2 0-0 7.0-0 De8 8.b3 a5 9.Lb2 Pa6 10.a3 c6 11.Te1 Dg6 12.e4 Pxe4 13.Pxe4 fxe4 14.Txe4 e5 15.De2 Lf5 16.Te3 e4 17.Pd2 d5 18.f3 Lg5 19.Tc3 Tae8 20.fxe4 dxe4 21.Te1 Lg4 22.Dxg4 Le3+ 23.Tcxe3 Dxg4 24.Lxe4 Pc7 25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 Dd7 27.Pc4 Df7 28.d6 Txe4 ½-½

Pantebre Martinez,B (2200) - Kirsch,G (2200) [A99]
Olympiade M Buenos Aires (9), 1978
1.d4 e6 2.Pf3 f5 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 d6 5.c4 Le7 6.Pc3 0-0 7.0-0 a5 8.b3 De8 9.e3 c6 10.Lb2 Pa6 11.Dd2 Tb8 12.Tac1 b5 13.cxb5 cxb5 14.Tfe1 Dh5 15.De2 Pc7 16.Pd2 Df7 17.f4 La6 18.Dd1 b4 19.Pce4 Pfd5 20.Pf2 Pb5 21.Pc4 Pbc3 22.Lxc3 Pxc3 23.Dd2 Lxc4 24.bxc4 Tbc8 25.Lf1 Dh5 26.e4 Lf6 27.exf5 exf5 28.Te6 g5 29.Ph3 Pe4 30.Dd1 Df7 31.d5 Da7+ 32.Kg2 g4 33.Txe4 gxh3+ 34.Kxh3 fxe4 35.Dg4+ Kh8 0-1

Volovich,A - Zaitsev,A [A96]
CCCP, 1962
1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.Pf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 De8 8.Lb2 Pc6 9.Pc3 Ld7 10.d5 Pd8 11.dxe6 Pxe6 12.e3 Kh8 13.Tc1 a5 14.a3 Pc5 15.Pd4 Pg4 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 Pe4 18.Pd5 Lg5 19.De2 Ta2 20.Ta1 Txa1 21.Lxa1 c6 22.Pf4 Pe5 23.Pf3 Lf6 24.Pxe5 dxe5 25.Pd3 De7 26.Td1 Ta8 27.Dc2 Le8 28.Lb2 Lh5 29.Ta1 Td8 30.c5 h6 31.f3 Pg5 32.Pe1 e4 33.f4 Pf3+ 34.Lxf3 Lxb2 35.Dxb2 exf3 36.Kf2 De4 37.Tc1 Dd5 38.Tc2 Dd1 39.Dc3 Lg4 40.Tb2 Da1 41.Dc2 Td1 42.Ta2 Txe1 43.Txa1 Txa1 44.Dd2 Th1 45.Dd8+ Kh7 46.Dh4 Ta1 47.h3 Ta2+ 48.Kf1 Th2 49.hxg4 Txh4 50.gxh4 fxg4 51.f5 g6 52.f6 Kg8 53.e4 Kf7 54.e5 g3 55.Kg1 g5 56.h5 g4 0-1

Nedeljkovic,S - Maric,R [A96]
JUG, 1956
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Pf3 Pf6 4.g3 Le7 5.Lg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 De8 8.Lb2 a5 9.Pc3 Dh5 10.e3 Pa6 11.Pe1 Dh6 12.Pd3 c6 13.De2 Pb4 14.Pxb4 axb4 15.Pa4 e5 16.c5 Le6 17.Pb6 Tad8 18.Pc4 e4 19.cxd6 Lxd6 20.Pxd6 Txd6 21.De1 Pd5 22.a3 Lf7 23.axb4 b5 24.Ta7 Lh5 25.Dd2 Lf3 26.Tfa1 Dh5 27.Ta8 Lxg2 28.Kxg2 Tdf6 29.Txf8+ Txf8 30.Ta6 f4 31.exf4 Df3+ 32.Kg1 Txf4 33.Txc6 e3 0-1

Taimanov,M - Kortsjnoj,V [A98]
CCCPch sf Leningrad, 1950
1.d4 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Lg2 Pf6 4.Pf3 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.Dc2 Dh5 9.b3 Pc6 10.Lb2 Ld7 11.a3 Tae8 12.d5 Pd8 13.Pd4 e5 14.Pdb5 Pf7 15.Pxc7 Tc8 16.Pe6 Lxe6 17.dxe6 Pg5 18.Pd5 Pxd5 19.Lxd5 f4 20.f3 fxg3 21.hxg3 Dh3 22.Kf2 Pxf3 23.Ke3 Pd4 24.Dd1 Dxg3+ 25.Tf3 Pxf3 26.exf3 b5 27.Dh1 bxc4 28.bxc4 Tb8 29.Lc3 Tb3 30.Kd3 Df2 31.De1 e4+ 32.Lxe4 Txf3+ 33.Lxf3 Dxf3+ 34.Kc2 Txc3+ 35.Kb2 Tb3+ 0-1

Gibbs - Hayward,K
corr USA-ENG, 1986
1.d4 f5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.g3 e6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Pc3 De8 8.b3 Pc6 9.d5 Pd8 10.Pb5 Pxd5 11.Pxd6 Lxd6 12.cxd5 e5 13.Lb2 f4 14.Pd2 Pf7 15.Pe4 De7 16.Tc1 Pg5 17.Dd2 Pxe4 18.Lxe4 Lh3 19.Tfd1 Tf6 20.Dd3 Taf8 21.gxf4 Txf4 22.Lxh7+ Kh8 23.Dxh3 Th4 24.Dg2 Kxh7 25.Tc3 Lc5 26.Tf3 Th5 27.Lc1 Txf3 28.Dxf3 g6 29.Le3 Ld6 30.h3 e4 31.Dg4 De5 32.Dd7+ Kg8 33.Dc8+ Kf7 34.Dd7+ Kf8 35.Dc8+ Kf7 36.Dd7+ ½-½

Delemarre,J (2360) - Bricard,E (2475) [A96]
Sonnevanck Wijk aan Zee (6), 1996
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Pf3 Pf6 4.g3 Le7 5.Lg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 a5 8.Lb2 c6 9.Pc3 Ld7 10.Dc2 Pa6 11.e4 Pb4 12.De2 Pxe4 13.Pxe4 fxe4 14.Dxe4 e5 15.De2 Lf5 16.Pe1 exd4 17.Lxd4 Lf6 18.Td1 ½-½
Here Black might consider the never played 9...Qc7 too, though 10.Qc2 e5? (Na6 first) loses.

Müller,H - Vukovic,S [A96]
San Benedetto (11), 1957
1.Pf3 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Pf6 4.Lg2 Le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 d6 7.d4 a5 8.Pc3 Pa6 9.Lb2 c6 10.Te1 Pe4 11.e3 Ld7 12.Pxe4 fxe4 13.Pd2 d5 14.f3 exf3 15.Pxf3 b5 16.c5 ½-½

Of course I could have collected games too, in which Black lost almost chanceless. But I just wanted to make something clear: Williams writes that after 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 a5 "White can get an advantage without too much risk after 9.Bb2." This is very disputable. In case you agree with this quotation: Williams does not even mention Hayward's 8...Nc6, but advocates 8...Nbd7 and 8...Ne4. With so many options Black should prepare the Double Fianchetto, not fear it.

"But the Leningrad is usually by far more playable then the IZ."
This is an opinion, disguised as a fact. Maybe Sergej should take his own advice and go a little deeper in the theory of the IZ. Or maybe not, as stated before I like it when White players underestimate my pet defence.

Fair enough. But still I have four remarks:
1. playing 8...a5, 9...Na6 does not mean, that Black abandons other ideas; when the opportunity is there, e6-e5 or Nf6-e4 still should be played. After 8.b3 a5 9.Re1 for instance, Ne4 is much stronger than 8.Re1 Ne4.
2. Black has several options after 8.b3. As TalJechin indicated, it is not clear if immediately 8...a5 is necessary.  It is not clear either, if Black should leave the queen on e8 or play it to h5 and h6. Keith Hayward on his website advocates an early Nc6, not being afraid of d4-d5. All I can say is, that there is much room for investigation and fresh ideas - for both sides.
3. You already mentioned 7.Nc3 c6 with the idea Qc7 and e5. Because of 8.b4 you might also consider 7.Nc3 a5 8.b3 c6 9.Bb2 (but 9.Ba3 Na6 idea Nb4) Qc7 or Na6 and Qc7. Again my statement is, that Black must develop his own ideas.
4. in several main lines of the Leningrad Black leaves the pawn on e7 and plays c7-(c6)-c5 instead, initiating counterplay .... on the queenside.

As I have stated before, I had initially my doubts on the IZ too. What convinced me, is the fact that Black has a wide choice against the Double Fianchetto. Compare that game Druon-MNb: I never played b7-b5 nor e6-e5, still it was a good fighting game.